Bob's work is CLLLEEAAAAN, bro'. As to Taijuan, Bob expects him to hit the DL to open the season, with a few Tacoma starts and then right into the rotation whenever he's ready.
Who is looking good, a reader axs? "It's not a short list."
"Thirteen" comes up with his own way to represent fielders' scattercharts as "Plus/Minus" data. He takes into account the issue of whether a missed catch would have been made by 10% of fielders, or 80% of fielders, or what.
Picking from a long list of LL candidate articles, this one is as good as any :- )
Jim noted that Beimel is emerging - in Lloyd McClendon's mind, that is. (In Dr. D's mind, you need zero lefty relievers in a bullpen, but if you have to have one, Charlie Furbush is fine. Luetge or Beimel is going to wind up replacing a pretty good righty.)
Spec demonstrates that "assuming we get the Beimel glory days" we still don't get much. But! There is one very interesting, and very important, thing at which Beimel excels. Click the link to find out what it is. It would be especially nice to wield when protecting a 3- or 4-run lead.
Bill discovers that "Wins" and "Losses" are surprisingly effective stats for predicting pitcher value - more effective than WHIP, or ERA, or HR allowed, for example.
This doesn't surprise Dr. D. I mean, obviously you know that Felix Hernandez has gotten no run support, but adjusting for that is so easy that we do it mentally, on the fly. You "adjust" for Felix' won-loss percentage, vs. Justin Verlander's, without even arguing about it.
But given that -- given that you know the W/L will be boosted by being on a good team -- why don't you simply "normalize" for W/L by team W/L, the way you do for ERA and ballpark?
Brian Kenny asked Bill James to join in his effort to "get rid of the W stat." Bill replied, No, because he's not in the business of eliminating data. "Critics of the won-lost record are focused on the flaws in the won-lost records - but all statistics have biases and flaws of the same nature."
Check the career leaders, and season leaders, in W's and W/L%, and you're going to see pitchers who are good. Not pitchers who are random.
Always love checking anything Tony has to say. It's a bit like sitting in an M's boardroom.
In this one, he merely announces the fact that he's going to provide a framework for valuing "impact prospects," but he also includes some benchmarks that serve as a type of primer. If you don't know what a good "pop time" is, he fills you in (although I thought 1.85 was the basic standard). Most interesting is his revelation that teams focus on finding All-Stars, not Steady Eddies.